People blame an object for bad things happening, even though the object itself can't be at fault.
Here at subsim, in the guns thread, some people loved to use the "guns don't kill people" catch-phrase, to defend something they like.
Now, some of these people (iirc!) actually blame another tool for being "bad", just because they don't like it - though the same principles should apply here.

Do you see what I mean?

What a ridiculous argument to make.

Following the line of reasoning a little further maybe we should consider registering and/or outright banning smart phones. :hmmm:. That seems to be the go to response to "some" people in the subsim gun thread who feel that free people shouldn't have guns at all.

After all smart phones are responsible for increasing amounts of death and injury on our roadways due to distracted drivers and nobody really needs one when an 1990's vintage flip phone will do fine for making and receiving phone calls, even better yet limit them to just an even older Western Electric Princess phone and a pager because nobody who sponsored or signed the Bell Telephone Breakup Bill could ever have foreseen the downsides that Pokemon Go would have on pedestrian traffic awareness.

I just want them banned in grocery stores... specifically the grocery store I am in. :D

No that's way to fancy. :O:

When I first got my smart phone I had to google to find out how to turn on the flashlight. To stubborn to ask anyone.:oops:

Was that a response to what I said?

Come on you guys. We all know where this is going to wind up already.

I agree.

No, the saying was/is "Guns don't kill people, people do." referring to the fact that the inanimate object (gun) needs an user to function.

Can we agree on "Doughnuts and Hamburgers don't kill people, people do."

I've been eating Saturday Night Special doughnuts and Assault Bacon Hamburgers for decades and they haven't killed anyone (or me) yet. :D

Good for you.
Now, can you answer my question?

I assume your post above was directed towards me, but since I was neither addressed directly, nor quoted, I want to be sure, since what you said would mean you misunderstood what I said and on top, push me into a corner where I don't belong (anti gun...).

Also, an explanation why that argument was so very ridiculous would be... More constructive.

Yes, I know. That us my whole point.
I cut the phrase short because the laziness is strong in me and I assumed everyone sure knows it here so...
However, what I meant is:
The smartphone itself won't cause people to do bad things, it is their own responsibility what they do with them - same with guns, right?
Yet, some people on this board argue in favor of guns ("guns don't kill people..."), yet against smartphones (even if just in jest) - although the same principles/standards should apply here.
I simply noticed this rather odd differentiation.

Nah Twinkies give me gas. I'm saving them for a Peter Griffin post apocalyptic world where their resistance to decay will make them the only food available for those of us with the tentacles to get there.

Driver that killed 13 people in Texas? Texting.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...ting/99888684/

It's not the smart phone or the text feature that's at fault here. It's squarely on the idiot at the wheel.

Under new rules expected to come in next year, UK drivers will get six points on their licence and face a £200 fine yet I doubt that will be much of deterrent.

Total wast of time, this will not stop anyone gas banging on their mobile phone while driving until they cause a RTA.

Strange.
I basically said the same the other day, you know, when you complained "how ridiculous my argument was".
Now, did you just say so to provoke me, or did you just not understand my post?
Out of experience, both is very likely - so wich is it this time?

And again, how was it ridiculous?
I'd really like to know, twinkies and other important stuff aside...